Taylor Swift’s Luck May Have Run Out


Taylor Swift, also known as “Tay Tay” to us hip folk, was hit with a trademark infringement suit this week. Blue Sphere d/b/a as Lucky 13 Clothing has been selling apparel under the LUCKY 13 mark for more than 20 years. Blue Sphere claims that Tay Tay has caused confusion among the marketplace by selling clothing with the phrase “lucky 13? on her official website.

My first thought with these lawsuits is normally “are you real?” And it turns out, Lucky 13 is a real brand, with a website and everything! They also have a registration for the LUCKY 13 mark in connection with clothing.

According to Tay, the number 13 is a meaningful number for her specifically. She was born on December 13 and she is often seated in row number 13 (or row M, which is the 13th letter of the alphabet). Unfortunately for T, the “I really like it and it has personal meaning” defense is not specifically enumerated in the Lanham Act.

I reviewed her website, but didn’t see any clothing with “Lucky 13.” Perhaps the offending items have been removed. Because of this, I can’t tell whether the Big T was actually using the LUCKY 13 phrase as a trademark for her clothing, or whether she as merely using it as a decorative element. After all, my first thought after hearing about the lawsuit was “Lucky Brand Jeans is suing Taylor Swift?” As it turns out LUCKY brand jeans is in no way affiliated with LUCKY 13 brand apparel. On top of that, “lucky number 13? is a commonly known phrase. I’m not convinced that the Swift Machine’s use would truly constitute trademark infringement.

My favorite part about the dispute though is that the complaint also states that T Swift is “has been photographed with permanent or temporary tattoos and markets herself as liking fast cars and dangerous men who drive them inappropriately.” According to Blue Sphere, this is the same demographic that their clothing targets. While the similarity of channels of trade is an important aspect of evaluating a claim of trademark infringement, whether or not one “likes fast cars” normally is not a factor that affects the likelihood of confusion analysis. I haven’t seen it mentioned in a complaint before. Like, ever. Like, never, ever, ever.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »


Reporters on Deadline

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.